PepeM

Is there a more unintuitive software than WKO? I started the trial and I'll give it a chance, but from the little I've seen I think I'll stick to Golden Cheetah.

mattm

I thought Golden Cheetah was worse in terms of usability, but then again I was already used to WKO.

Are you using WKO 3 or 4? 4 is definitely hard to use, but I've gotten used to it.

That said I barely use it - I mostly just look at the PMC on the TrainingPeaks app on my phone.

PepeM

I'm using (well, downloaded last night) WKO4. Spent a long time trying to import my files (mostly Garmin's fault tbf) and then tried to show my all-time power curve but failed miserably (could only get the last week one to show) before calling it a night and hitting the sack. I'm sure it is a matter of getting used to it, I do remember taking some time to get comfortable with Golden Cheetah. Will play some more with it but I don't think it'll convince me to pay the ~$180 or so for it since, just as you, I mostly only look at PMC with the occasional trip to the CP chart.

PepeM

I did like that it shows my 'mFTP' as 22 watts higher than the FTP I've been using which, while flattering, is probably not accurate. It also classifies me as a 'TTer' but that's not because I would be any good at time trials, but because I have absolutely no top end.

ancker

I was a long time Golden Cheetah user. It definitely had usability issues. I would get frustrated that things would move or change between releases and could never find any explanation or documentation on how to see data that had previously existed. At least a few times I had to delete everything and re-import 5 years worth of data.
I don't remember exactly what made me switch to Cycling Analytics, but it was shortly after GC3 came out. I'm super happy I did.

I've considered trying it (GC) again recently but I already upload data to Garmin Connect, CA, DailyMile, and Strava (outdoor rides only). I don't really want to add GC back into the mix unless it's got something the others don't offer. WKO is off my list just because of price. I'm happy with CA and the small amount it costs. WKO might have a few advantages, but $180 is a bit steep.

That said, I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

mattm

Yeah that part is confusing; the default view is "this week" or "last 7 days" or something; you can select "this month", "this year", "all time" etc somewhere on the right I think. Definitely confusing.

Damn I want that version! My measured(?) FTP shows as like 20w lower than what I have set..

PepeM

Eventually I found the way to change the date range, it is indeed on the right. As for the FTP, I think the m stands for 'model.' I start to get the hang of it but it would be nice if there was a way to know what everything is without having to search blog posts and facebook comments and videos.

Playing a bit more with it, I see some plots and other data I like (I'm a bit of a data nerd), such as the 'strengths and weaknesses' and WAC charts, or the stuff with 'FRC,' which apparently has gone steadily downhill for me since January. As to how any of this will make me better at riding my bicycle, I have no clue.

petereps

What are your guys' thoughts on 4 vs 5 "hard" days a week? I know this is kind of a vague question considering hard is relative, but lets say 700 tss vs 800 tss a week? I feel much better on the weekends when I only do 2 days of intervals during the week instead of 3, but am I losing a lot of fitness by doing one day less of hard work? Or are the gains marginal? Thanks.

TheKillerPenguin

During the race season, or during a training block?

Doge

Are you going to add sleep too?

wens

I think your question is overly general. I've done everything from zero to five scheduled hard days in a week, and had weeks with no scheduled hard riding but lots of freedom to do whatever I feel like. 700 or 800 tss/week are both pretty hefty training volumes if you have to fit in work/school/real world as well.

Ygduf

you might reach your full potential sooner by riding more hard days, but you'll probably not do as well if you're racing on the weekend. Or, do fewer hard days but do those hard days "better" with more rest.

The difference between someone who rides 600TSS/week vs someone who rides 900TSS/week is not 50%. Your body can only adapt so fast. Chronic training load is how fast you are sliding that tire across the ground. You get father pulling the tire a little slower (lower CTL) than you do yanking it (huge TSS) and hurting your back.

jdms mvp

define 'hard' . In season i probably could do 3 intervals a week and racing on weekends. Could i do this every week for 10 weeks. no. 2-3 weeks. probably.

beatlebee 

I get burnt out quickly moving from 3 to 4 hard days per week. (T, Th, Sat versus T,Th, Sat,Sun) Sometimes I feel it is needed to prepare for stage races, but I have gotten faster and better results by going really hard 3 times per week. Age plays a factor.

TMonk

So I've noticed that my CTL on a given date drops over time in the softwares (WKO 3.0+). Does this make any sense? I logged my CTL on 1/3/2016 for a while, and this is what I found:

[TABLE="width: 260"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]values for Su, 1/3/2016[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]date[/TD]
[TD]CTL[/TD]
[TD]ATL[/TD]
[TD]TSB[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/5/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]57.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-55.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/6/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]57.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-56.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/8/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]57.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-55.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/10/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]57.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-56[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/11/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]56.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-57.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/13/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]52.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-60.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/17/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]50.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-63.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/18/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]49.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-64.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/20/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]46.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-67.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/23/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-72[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1/28/2016[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]39.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]113.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-74[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So is this messed up or what?

echappist

see if you didn't accidentally change the time constant for ATL and CTL. your ATL is barely changing, which is odd.

globecanvas

Either it's a bug or it's not displaying the variable you expect. The numbers would make sense if it were displaying something like "CTL contribution for the current date that is attributable to training stress accumulated prior to 1/3/2016."

TMonk

Hmm, thanks for the responses. Will look into this further.

Well, If I'm thinking about them currently, ATL, CTL or TSB should remain static for a fixed point in time, regardless of time constant. The time constant may change the magnitude of the value, but the values should remain fixed.

Am I thinking about this incorrectly?

TMonk

I had to think about that for a second, ha. Yes, that does make sense to me now and I wonder if that's what I'm looking at in my PMC.

TMonk

This doesn't affect me so much in the short term, as my FTP is what it is and I still use power to pace and prescribe workouts. It would be nice if I could trust the PMC - I just don't believe that my CTL and TSB are as low as what the software suggests some times.

TheKillerPenguin

If your FTP is like 300W and in perfect circumstances (no life stress, paid to do it for a living, etc) your CTL can be sustained at 120, then a CTL of 60 simply means that relative to your own ceiling you're doing 50% of the work you can theoretically maintain without coming apart, as measured by TSS. Where this seems to pay off is in endurancey type things, and where it gets a bit more nebulous is with lots of work done above FTP. I find CTL is great at determining how deep I can go relative to myself late into a ride, but that it doesn't necessarily mean much if a ride is relatively shorter than say, 2-3hrs Where I find I have to rely on my judgment more than the chart is when a lot of intensity is mixed in, as fatigue does not seem to be as well reflected in TSB. I have observed that when I do a lot of high intensity work, I feel more fatigued than the PMC suggests I should; 100CTL in base just feels different than 100CTL in build.

I think the PMC is a valuable tool, but ultimately it is just a tool, and what matters is how you feel and whether or not your power is where you'd like it to be. If your numbers are increasing you're probably doing it right.

edit: 120 ceiling was an arbitrary number, it could be anything and from everything I've read and been told it varies from person to person.

TheKillerPenguin

That was a long af way of saying if you're feeling good, don't sweat it

mike868y

what do you guys display on your screen for racing/training?

i'm thinking:
current hr, avg hr, current power, avg power, distance (total for my training screen and lap for race screen), and time (total and lap for training screen, just lap for race screen) - i figure at races the only real time i'll use the lap function is on the starting line after warmup.

Doge

Training - a lot to comment about, but from power only to time, speed, power. What several on the team with different coaches do.

Racing, other than TTs - turn power display off. Not all have bought into this yet, but unless you know you will aspload, why race to a number?

mike868y

for training i definitely need time, how else would you do intervals?

but, for racing, that almost makes sense. granted, i rarely ever look at my computer in races. just to look at distance during road races, but never really for pacing purposes.